Annotated Bibliography Resubmission

Bardella, Maria Teresa, et al. “Gluten intolerance: Gender- and Age-Related Differences in Symptoms.” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 40.1 (2005): 15-19. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.

This article describes a study that was done to determine if there is any correlation between gender and gluten intolerance. The study determined that the diagnosis of coeliac disease is more frequent in women, but this could be disproven in time with improved diagnostics of men. They also stated that the difference was only significant when diagnosed in adulthood when there is a greater association of iron-deficiency anaemia in women. 

Buechle, Kurt. “The Great, Global Promise of Genetically Modified Organisms: Overcoming Fear, Misconceptions, and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 9.1 (2001): 283-324. JSTOR. Web. 3 Jun 2015.

This article discusses the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Protocol) which was formed in January 2000 at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and responds to concerns about GMOs. The article describes and analyzes the Protocol in five parts; goals of the Protocol’s regulations, potential benefits or harms associated with GMOs, the role of the precautionary principles, labeling requirements of the Protocol and issues of labeling GMOs, and lastly, the possible effects of the Protocol and GMOs.

Germolec, Dori R., et al. “Key Issues for the Assessment of the Allergenic Potential of Genetically Modified Foods: Breakout Group Reports.” Environmental Health Perspectives 111.8 (Jun 2003): 1131-1140. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Jun 2015.

This article follows the final day of the “Assessments of the Allergenic Potential of Genetically Modified Foods” workshop that was held in December of 2001 in North Carolina. The article briefly summarizes the topics of each of the six discussion groups in the workshop. The individual groups talked about questions of GMOs in the areas of clinical human data, animal models that assessed food allergies, exposure and effect of biomarkers, sensitive populations, dose-response assessment, and post market responses, while also addressing general questions about allergenicity of GMOs and discussing current knowledge of each field and what more information is needed.

Gibbons, Ann. “The Evolution of Diet.” National Geographic. National Geographic. Web. 25 May 2015.

                This article provides the basis for the argument about the Paleo diet, which follows the diet of our hunter/gatherer ancestors. It then goes on to explain that this craze is based on a few misconceptions and the story is a bit more complicated. Following the path of human diet through history, the article describes some important changes caused by each new development in the human diet, eating meat caused smaller guts, agriculture lead to a population boom. It goes on to explain what the “real” Paleo diet would have been comprised of and states there is no one ideal human diet and explains that the revolution of our diets may not have started with eating meat, but with the invention of cooking which breaks down food to make it more digestible but lead to the shift to processed foods like Twinkies. 

Gil-Humanes, Javier, et al. “Reduced-Gliadin Wheat Bread: An Alternative to the Gluten-Free Diet for Consumers Suffering Gluten-Related Pathologies” PLOS One 9.3 (2014): 1-9. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

This article describes a study done to determine the quality of bread that has been made with reduced gliadin proteins in comparison to wheat and rice based breads. The results of this study indicated that there was no difference in terms of quality and that consumers may find it preferable to rice bread. It goes on to state that the value of this bread will depend on whether it can become commercially available.

- - -. “The Shutdown of Celiac Disease-Related Gliadin Epitopes in Bread Wheat by RNAi Provides Flours with Increased Stability and Better Tolerance to Over-Mixing” PLOS One 9.3 (2014): 1-11. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

This article, much like the last, attempts to determine the value of breads with lower gluten protein content. It give more in depth explanations about gliadin proteins and celiac disease and the classification of gluten proteins (glutenins and gliadins) as well as some past studies done on reducing gluten properties in grain. The article goes on to describe the process of making bread and the properties of the bread/dough throughout the transformation. It then explains and compares the different properties described before in the study. Finally, the article explains its results, stating that the quality of the goods are similar to those of gluten containing baked goods.

 Guyenet, Stephan. “Grains and Human Evolution.” Whole Health Source.  N.p. 10 July 2008. Web. 21 Apr. 2015

In his blog entry, Guyenet follows the evolution of human diet, stating that the evidence for how long humans have been consuming grains varies widely, but that it may never have been a major food source. He argues that there has not been sufficient adaptation to make grains a healthy food option, and we have not yet become tolerant to wheat which is the oldest grain.

 

Helme, Morgan A. “Genetically Modified Food Fight: The FDA Should Step Up to the Regulatory Plate so States Do Not Cross the Constitutional Line.” Minnesota Law Review 98.1 (2013): 356-384. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Jun 2015.

This article reviews arguments over the labeling of GMOs. It is divided into three parts which provide an overview of mandatory labeling, the constitutional authority of individual states in labeling requirements, and potential solutions and recommendations of voluntary regulations and binding standards to the FDA. The article does not talk about the safety of GMOs and in its conclusion states that mandatory GMO labeling are unconstitutional.

Hennessy, Maggie. “Celiac Disease Foundation, Plant Geneticist, Challenge Report Linking GMOs to Celiac Disease, Gluten Sensitivity.” William Reed Business Media. William Reed Business Media, 3 Dec. 2013. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.

Much of this article focuses on disproving a report on the Institute for Responsible Technology website because of its speculative nature. The article provides quotes from several professionals to discredit the idea made by Smith and the Institute for Responsible Technology that the consumption of GMOs directly correlates to the development of gluten intolerance.

Herrick, Clare B. “’Cultures of GM’: Discourses of Risk and Labelling of GMOs in the UK and EU.” Area 37.3 (Sep 2005): 286-294. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Jun 2015.

This author discusses the public naturalization of biotechnology into existing cultural systems, what she terms “cultures” of genetic modification. The article describes these cultures as legitimized through the cultural concepts of risks and food labeling policies.

Kam, Katherine. “Going Gluten-Free.” WebMD. WebMD, 19 July 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

This particular article was very brief with no specific message. The entire article focused on the description on gluten sensitivity and celiac disease, as well as the benefits of a gluten free diet. The benefits are mainly helping those with a sensitivity, there is no proof that it helps with other issues, such as weight loss. This article may come in handy for definition purposes, as the descriptions in many of the other article can be difficult to comprehend. In contrast, this article was written for the general public, not just specifically for the scientific community.

Katiraee, Layla. “Do Genetically Modified Foods Cause Gluten Allergies?” Genetic Literacy Project. Genetic Literacy Project, 28 March 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

This article, similarly to a one on a previous website, also aims to disprove a press release issued by the Institute for Responsible Technology, a one-person NGO founded by Jeffrey Smith. Katiree explains that Smith had no background in the science field and is statements were not given attention by the science community. She does go on to explain the difference between gluten sensitivities and allergies as well as where gluten data can be found, before delving into the essential question. In the article, some arguments both for and against the arguments of anti-GMO campaigners and the Celiac Disease Foundation (CDF) are explained, before stating that “the greatest evidence that GMOs are not tied to gluten allergies is that GMO wheat is not yet on the market.”

Lásztity, Radomir, Tibor Abonyi. “Prediction of Wheat Quality—Past, Present, Future. A Review.” Food Reviews International 25.2 (2009): 126-141. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

In the introduction of this article, there is a brief history of the discovery and preparation of gluten. This is followed by an explanation of protein ratios and gluten properties. Then, a description is given of gliadin composition of wheat and it effect on grain quality. Each piece serves as a dissection of the gluten, gliadin, glutenin, and other gluten-related proteins. The article ends with a prediction of how quality will improve over the years to come.

Lauret, Eugenia, Luis Rodrigo. “Celiac Disease and Autoimmune-Associated Conditions.” BioMed Research International (2013): 1-17. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Jun 2015.

This article discusses the basis of Celiac disease (CD) and the resulting digestive problems. It reviews CD as a member of a group of autoimmune diseases and its effects on the human body. The article also discusses the health improvements brought by implementing a gluten free diet.

Lu, Shan, et al. “Structural Basis for Gluten Intolerance in Celiac Sprue.” Science 297.5590 (2002): 2275-2279. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.

This study focused on describing Gluten Intolerance as opposed to a sensitivity. It explains that the Celiac Sprue, a widely prevalent autoimmune disease found in the small intestine, is the primary factor in an inflammatory response to gluten in a patient with a gluten sensitivity. This study was mostly informative and had little by way of a direct thesis to prove, or disprove. It may be useful as a reference that provides a more in depth explanation of the differences between an allergy and a sensitivity.

Metcalfe, Dean D. “Introduction: What Are the Issues in Addressing the Allergenic Potential of Genetically Modified Foods?” Environmental Health Perspectives 111.8 (2003): 1110-1113. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

This article sums up the basis of the debate surrounding GMOs and food allergies. It provides an explanation of food allergies on the whole, how a reaction to food is caused, as well as potential results of a reaction. It also describes forms of testing for food allergies and procedures to treat an allergic reaction, and the process of detection of allergenic properties of certain genes and the process of avoiding transferring these genes to GMOs.  In the end, the article determines that decisions made as to how to apply existing knowledge and databases in the assessment of GMO foods for potential allergenicity will be only successful if they are creditable to research scientists, industry and to the public at large.

Oraby, Hanaa, et al. “Biological Impact of Feeding Rats with a Genetically Modified-Based Diet.” Turkish Journal of Biology 39.2 (2015): 265-275. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

This article describes a study done on rats to determine the development of genetically modified organisms and their potential risk factor. It gives detailed explanation of the process of the study from feeding the rats to investigations of their organs and blood analysis. The last part of the article discusses the findings of the experiment which showed various forms of abnormal changes in cell shape, and protein formation, but no noticeably harmful impact on the health of the animals tested.

Osella, Carlos, Maria de La Torre, Hugo Sánchez. “Safe Foods for Celiac People.” Food and Nutrition Sciences 5.9 (Apr 2014): 787-800. ProQuest. Web. 3 Jun 2015.

This article also describes the makeup of celiac disease and its effects, as well as its prevalence among people. The article then goes on to discuss the makeup and importance of raw ingredients that are suitable for gluten intolerant people to eat. Ingredients such as rice flour, sorghum flour, starches, hydrocolloids, soy flour and dairy products are described and analyzed for their possible manufacturing possibilities.

Parker, Laura. “The GMO Labeling Battle Is Heating Up - Here’s Why.” National Geographic. National Geographic, 12 Jan. 2014. Web. 25 May 2015.

This article explains the concerns of manufacturers about giving consumers the wrong idea about a product by labeling GMO ingredients. It focuses the event of Cheerios are removing GMOs from their ingredients, and points out other companies, like Ben and Jerry’s and Chipotle Mexican Grill, or Trader Joes who have already or are working to eliminate GMOs from their products. The article makes the argument that Cheerios is just playing on the growing consumer mistrust of GMOs, and that the Food and Drug Administration have determined it safe for humans to consume GMOs, but still, 9 out of 10 Americans support labeling of modified foods.  

“Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Foods.” HealthResearchFunding.org. HealthResearchFunding.org, 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

This brief article lists the three major reasons both for and against GMOs, including increased allergic reactions. It follows the list with a debate over whether the benefits outweigh the risks, to which it states that the benefits depend on the specific issues of an individual area, such as hunger.The article also shows a series of images that describes aspects of GMOs, such as percent grown in the U.S., two reasons we may need them, and who requires labels or bans on GMOs.

Sarich, Christina. “18 Million Americans Suffer From GMO And Gluten Intolerance.” Natural Society. Natural Society, 8 July 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

This article is very clearly anti-GMO, connecting GMOs to the rise of gluten intolerance, and stating the formation of new, indigestible proteins in wheat. It makes no distinction between GMOS and organism breeding, such as wheat breading, and it makes broad statements about what genetically modified foods are doing to our bodies while little supporting evidence, and no basis for where some information like statistics and un-named studies come from. Over all, the article does not lend itself to reliability, but does provide an example of the counter argument.

“Should You Worry About GMOs?” Tufts University Health &Nutrition Letter 31.9 (2013): 4-5. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

The article starts with a description and history of the debate over labeling GMO ingredients in stores and restaurants and addresses the argument that there has been do discussion about whether or not such products have any health risks. It explains where you are most likely to find GM food, most being GM corn and soy beans are fed to livestock and that much of the engineered genes are eliminated in processing the foods, so few of those genes reach the grocery store. The article proceeds to explain that any gene added that actually effects the kernel or seed specifically is added for nutritional value. In weighing the arguments both for and against, the article suggests that the only real reasons for avoiding GMOs are ethics based, not based on human health. This gives a good view on both sides of an argument that few other articles have considered, that being the public/ethical debate, not just a health debate.

Smith, Jeffery M. “Are Genetically Modified Foods a Gut-Wrenching Combination?” Institute for Responsible Technology. Institute for Responsible Technology. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

This particular article is highly controversial as it is the focus of other article I have mentioned earlier. The article itself does make the distinction between wheat hybridization and GMOs, unlike some other articles with the same argument, but links components of GMOS to gluten-related disorders. It goes on to explain how each is a result of ingesting GMOs and how each leads to some form of gluten sensitivity or celiac. The article ends with a warning to stay away from eating GMOs and saying that many physicians prescribe non-GMO diets to patients with some form of gluten sensitivity.

 

The National Wheat Improvement Committee. “Wheat Improvement: The Truth Unveiled.”(2013): 1-5. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

This article provides an easily comprehendible explanation of the different types of wheat breading, both of which are considered to be crossing of species, not genetic engineering. It provides some background on the development and demand of wheat and mentions where and why scientists in the United States are working on understanding the wheat genome for future breeding purposes. Following these descriptions, the article lists several myths about wheat and provides specific facts in response to each misconception. Though some of the myths are easily disputed, wheat is either genetically modified or it isn’t, others are not as deeply discussed to provide sufficient counter arguments. Saying there is no evidence is not the same as saying there is evidence against, and it does not discount potential relationships. The article ends by stating all the positives about wheat and the breeding process. I do feel that some of their arguments seem a bit thin, but the facts they do provide speak to some of the questions I have had about the aspects of wheat breading that I hope to apply in my paper when differentiating between the process of breeding and genetically engineering.

Webb, Densie. “10 Whole Grain Myths Busted.” Environmental Nutrition 38.2 (2015): 6-6. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

Similarly to the last article, this page of Environmental Nutrition states common ideas about whole grains and follows each with a counter argument to disprove the basis of each argument. The article talks about whole grains as a whole, but it does specify some aspects as pertaining to wheat. The responses are straight forward and easily comprehended, but not lacking in directness of a point. There is no assumption that the evidence equals or outweighs any evidence against whole grains.  

Wilk-Nielsen, C.R., et al. “Quantification of Dietary DNA in Tissues of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) Fed Genetically Modified Feed Ingredients.” Aquaculture Nutrition 17.2 (2011): e668-e674. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

This article briefly describes the demand for Atlantic salmon and the resulting farming and feeding of Atlantic salmon. It then goes on to explain the basis of the study and feed ingredients, maize, both non-GM and GM, and non-GM and GM soybean, and the feeding and testing routine. The conclusion of the study showed that a large fraction of the dietary DNA was taken up and distributed to various organs in the salmon. It does state that it is yet to be determined if dietary DNA is also integrated into the genome of tissue cells, but that no differences were observed to specify a GM and non-GM origin of ingredients, and that no dietary DNA was linked to specific health effects

 

 

 

Research Project Abstract

There are continuous murmurings about the debate over labeling of genetically modified organisms in our food, and one of the most frequent arguments for the opposition is that GMOs cause the development of food allergies such as gluten intolerance. This article argues that GMOs should not be classified as a source of gluten intolerance in the controversy over labeling and consuming genetically engineered products. It begins with an explanation of terms such as wheat breading and gluten intolerance before delving into the relationship of these terms in the debate over GMOs. The paper then goes on to describe some of the current aspects as well as some of the history of the debate over labeling GMOs. Some common misconceptions about GMOs are disputed, and studies are analyzed that explain the health risks of consuming GMOs. Finally, the evolution of the human diet is discussed as the basis of gluten intolerance.  This article uses mostly scholarly scientific sources and articles from online non-profits or public, scientific websites.

Research Project Rational

As with most papers, my research project will begin with an introduction to my topic, the debate over the health repercussions of consuming genetically modified organisms, specifically gluten sensitivities. I will provide a brief definition of GMOs to aid my reader’s understanding of the debate. I will also mention some personal experiences with gluten sensitivity to begin to explain my intentions for writing this paper. The last sentence will be my thesis statement.

The first portion of my paper will be about defining terms. The introduction will provide a brief description of GMOs, but this section will go into greater detail about the difference of genetic engineering and hybridization, specifically of wheat. This will provide any reader with a greater understanding of the credibility some of the arguments that will be mentioned later in the paper. I will then go on to describe the aspects of reactions to gluten, explaining the difference between a sensitivity and an allergy. I will use support from several sources to make sure the information is easily understandable. This information will also prove useful to the reader for future understanding of the debate in later paragraphs.

The next portion of my paper will describe some of the current arguments about GMOs, including the debate over labeling GMO products as well as the argument over GMO contribution to food allergies. The first source I will use will provide some of the basic pros and cons in the debate before going into deeper explanations about arguments and counterarguments. I will go on to describe some of the anti-GMO articles and the common ideas they represent. I will start with this side of the argument as it is not only more common among people not in the scientific community, but it also has less scientific evidence to support the arguments being made. I will then continue to explain some of the articles found that are of the opinion that GMOs have to influence on gluten sensitivities. I will start with some of the articles that directly rebuke a previous article against GMOs. I will use these article as a natural transition to the other side of the argument. This section will be constructed to inform the reader about both sides of the debate which will provide the reader with a greater understanding for the need of scientific experimentation.

The following section of my research paper will be devoted to explaining some scientific studies done about genetically modified foods. The beginning of this section will describe several sources that explain the properties of wheat and contradict some of the common myths about wheat. In some form, this will act as a continuation on some of the previous definitions and descriptions and provide yet another natural transition into describing some of the scientific experiments. I will then go on to explain the basis of some of the experiments I will describe. Much of this section will be focused on two studies in particular that test the dietary impact of GMOs on rats and Atlantic salmon. These studies will provide the reader with a greater understanding of the evidence against the association between food allergies and genetic engineering. Finally, I will go on to analyze some experiments done to test the quality of bread made with wheat that contain less of a gluten protein. This last portion will act as a lead into the next portion of the paper and will add to the reader’s understanding of gluten sensitivity.

The last section of the paper will focus on the evolution of the human diet. The sources I will use will explain some of the developments in the human body as a result of the growing diet. They will explain how humans came around to eating grains from a diet of meat and when the different grains in different cultures around the world were introduced into society. This last portion will contribute to the reader’s further understanding of the development of gluten sensitivity. The section will not specifically discuss genetic engineering, but it will re-inforce the argument that GMOs do not directly contribute to gluten allergies.

In my conclusion I restate my thesis and briefly summarize the arguments made in the paper. I will add a few personal experiences of what I have discovered in the research project and how that information has changed much of my previous understandings of GMOs and gluten sensitivity. I will finish with a statement on how I hope this research will provide readers with a better understanding of the debate and perhaps inform them enough to reconsider any position they may have had before.

Research Project Outline

1)      An introduction to the debate over genetically modified organisms in food. Specifically, the paper will focus on the argument on whether GMOs contribute to food allergies, more specifically, gluten sensitivities.

a)      Definition and explanations of GMOs

i)        Genetically engineered crops such as soybeans, sugar beets, and feed corn make up about 90 percent of the commodity crops in America’s food supply.(Parker)

ii)       Genetic engineering involves the tweaking of genes to resist pests, grow more easily or boost the crop’s nutritional value. However, processing of these crops eliminated most modified genes and proteins, and as a result of heavy processing, only a very small fraction of these genes make it to the grocery store.  Also, most fresh produce does not come from a GMO source. (Should You Worry About GMOs?)

b)      Personal experiences with grain sensitivities and thinking GMOs were the cause.

i)        Research for this project has greatly informed me about the various misconceptions I had had about GMOs and food allergies.

c)       Thesis: Though still highly controversial, GMOs are not a root cause of the development of gluten sensitivities or allergies, and should not be publicized as such by members of the anti-GMO debate.

2)      Further definitions on GMOs and hybridization as well as descriptions of the properties of gluten intolerance and sensitivities.

a)      GMOs vs. the hybridization of wheat:

i)        There are two different types of wheat breading, both of which are considered to be the crossing of different wheat species, and neither fall under the category of genetic engineering. (The National Wheat Improvement Committee)

b)      Gluten intolerance and sensitivity:

i)        There are specific differences between what is known as a gluten sensitivity and celiac disease. (Kam)

(1)    The Celiac Sprue, which is a widely prevalent autoimmune disease found in the small intestine, is the primary factor in an inflammatory response to gluten for a person with a gluten sensitivity. (Lu et al.)

ii)       A description of the gluten proteins (glutenins and gliadins) and their effect on celiac disease through the study of reduced-gliadin breads. (Gil-Humanes et al., “The Shutdown of Celiac Disease…”)

(1)    An explanation of protein ratios within gluten and their properties. A brief dissection of the gluten, gliadin, glutenin, and other gluten-related proteins. (Lásztity, Abonyi)

3)      Descriptions of the debate of GMOs.

a)      Some of the pros and cons of genetically engineered foods, such as increased allergic reactions or the end of hunger. (Pros and Cons)

b)      Many of the articles against GMOs tend to report the same, ideas:

i)        GMOs play a major role in the rise of gluten intolerance, and cause the formation of new, indigestible proteins in wheat. (Sarich)

ii)       Each gluten-related disorder is a result of ingesting GMOs and each leads to some form of gluten sensitivity or celiac. (Smith)

c)       Articles in favor of GMOs use evidence to counter such wide spread misconceptions:

i)        Smith and the Institute for Responsible Technology are incorrect in the declaration that the consumption of GMOs directly correlates to the development of gluten intolerance, and their report hold no ground in the scientific community.(Hennessy)

ii)       As there is not yet a form of GMO wheat on the market, there is not direct connection to the development of gluten allergies. (Katiree)

4)      Misconceptions about genetic engineering of wheat, or lack thereof, and the scientific studies countering the claim that GMOs have some negative dietary repercussions.

a)      Wheat

i)        Ideas about whole grains and follows each with a counter argument to disprove the basis of each argument. (Webb)

ii)       Development and demand of wheat and mentions where and why scientists in the United States are working on understanding the wheat genome for future breeding purposes. (The National Wheat Improvement Committee)

b)      Studies on GMOs

i)        Resulting farming and feeding of Atlantic salmon. It then goes on to explain the basis of the study and feed ingredients, maize, both non-GM and GM, and non-GM and GM soybean, and the feeding and testing routine. The conclusion of the study showed that a large fraction of the dietary DNA was taken up and distributed to various organs in the salmon. It does state that it is yet to be determined if dietary DNA is also integrated into the genome of tissue cells, but that no differences were observed to specify a GM and non-GM origin of ingredients, and that no dietary DNA was linked to specific health effects. (Wilk-Nielsen)

ii)       Various forms of abnormal changes in cell shape, and protein formation, but no noticeably harmful impact on the health of the animals tested. (Oraby)

c)       Testing the quality of reduced Glaidin wheat in bread:

i)        There was no difference in terms of quality and consumers may find the reduced gliadin bread preferable to rice bread as a gluten free alternative. (Gil-Humanes et al., “Reduced-Gliadin Wheat Bread…”)

ii)       The quality of the reduced gliadin bread was considered similar to those of gluten containing baked goods. (Gil-Humanes et al., “The Shutdown of Celiac Disease…”)

 

5)      Evolution of the human diet: some history on how our ancestors came around to eating the things we consider to be food staples.

a)      Development of diet to including grains

i)        Given the huge time span over which humans developed, we have not been eating grains for very long time. The result is that there has not been sufficient adaptations within in the body to make grains a healthy food option to be consumed in such mass quantities, meaning we have not yet become tolerant to wheat which is the oldest grain.(Guyenet)

ii)       Each new addition to the human diet had some effect on the human civilization, eating meat caused smaller guts, and agriculture lead to a population boom. There is no one ideal human diet and the revolution of our diets may not have started with eating meat, but the invention of cooking, which breaks down food to make it more digestible, eventually lead to the shift to processed foods like Twinkies. (Gibbons)

6)      Conclusion: Regardless of whether it is better to label GMOs in food products or not, genetic engineering is not the cause in the rise if gluten intolerance and should not be publicized as such.

a)      I have learned a great deal from this research and my opinion has changed much since I started looking into gluten intolerance and GMOs.

b)      The intent of this paper is to provide readers with a clearer understanding of GMOs and gluten intolerance and to aid them in developing their own, informed, opinion for the debate over labeling or consuming GMOs.

Literature Review

There is a big debate today over the labeling of genetically modified foods and ingredients in products. However, despite it being a popular issue of the times, it seems that the public actually knows very little about GMOs. Most of what we hear about the dangers of engineered foods is usually in the context of health risks, but what role do GMOs play in health? Many of the statements made about GMOs causing food allergies, specifically gluten intolerance,  seem believable, mess with the genetics of our food and there will be consequences, but where are these statements coming from, what basis do they have? Just from personal experience I can say that of the people warning me against GMOs, known had any medical or scientific experience. The various sources I have gathered tend to revolve around the same four categories: clarifying definitions of GMOs and gluten, what each side of the debate is saying about GMOs, the study of GMOs and organism’s health, and finally, what other factors, such as the evolution of human diet, may contribute to food allergies.

To fully understand the debate, you must first have a basic understanding and clear definitions about the subjects being debated. In the controversy over GMOs, this first steep seems to be easily skipped over. An article put out by the National Wheat Improvement Committee titled “Wheat Improvement: The Truth Unveiled provides an easily comprehendible explanation of the different types of wheat breading, both of which are considered to be crossing of species, not genetic engineering. It provides some background on the development and demand of wheat and mentions where and why scientists in the United States are working on understanding the wheat genome for future breeding purposes. Following these descriptions, the article lists several myths about wheat and provides specific facts in response to each misconception. Though some of the myths are easily disputed, wheat is either genetically modified or it isn’t, others are not as deeply discussed to provide sufficient counter arguments. Saying there is no evidence is not the same as saying there is evidence against, and it does not discount potential relationships. The article ends by stating all the positives about wheat and the breeding process. I do feel that some of their arguments seem a bit thin, but the facts they do provide speak to some of the questions I have had about the aspects of wheat breading that I hope to apply in my paper when differentiating between the process of breeding and genetically engineering.  As this is a growing issue, more studies have been done to try and fully understand the factors involved with human health. An article “Gluten intolerance: Gender- and Age-Related Differences in Symptoms,” written by Maria Teresa Bardella and her colleagues for a 2005 issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology describes a study that was done to determine if there is any correlation between gender and gluten intolerance. The study determined that the diagnosis of coeliac disease is more frequent in women, but this could be disproven in time with improved diagnostics of men. They also stated that the difference was only significant when diagnosed in adulthood when there is a greater association of iron-deficiency anaemia in women. A more specific study which was published in a 2014 edition of PLOS One.  Javier Gil-Humanes and his associates wrote an article, “Reduced-Gliadin Wheat Bread: An Alternative to the Gluten-Free Diet for Consumers Suffering Gluten-Related Pathologies,” which describes a study done to determine the quality of bread that has been made with reduced gliadin proteins in comparison to wheat and rice based breads. The results of this study indicated that there was no difference in terms of quality and that consumers may find it preferable to rice bread. It goes on to state that the value of this bread will depend on whether it can become commercially available. A similar, more in depth article written by the same set of colleagues titled “The Shutdown of Celiac Disease-Related Gliadin Epitopes in Bread Wheat by RNAi Provides Flours with Increased Stability and Better Tolerance to Over-Mixing” attempts to determine the value of breads with lower gluten protein content. It give more in depth explanations about gliadin proteins and celiac disease and the classification of gluten proteins (glutenins and gliadins) as well as some past studies done on reducing gluten properties in grain. The article goes on to describe the process of making bread and the properties of the bread/dough throughout the transformation. It then explains and compares the different properties described before in the study. Finally, the article explains its results, stating that the quality of the goods are similar to those of gluten containing baked goods. For further description, the introduction of an article called “Prediction of Wheat Quality—Past, Present, Future. A Review,” written for Food Reviews International in 2009 by Radomir Lásztity and Tibor Abonyi, there is a brief history of the discovery and preparation of gluten. This is followed by an explanation of protein ratios and gluten properties. Then, a description is given of gliadin composition of wheat and it effect on grain quality. Each piece serves as a dissection of the gluten, gliadin, glutenin, and other gluten-related proteins. The article ends with a prediction of how quality will improve over the years to come. Looking more specifically at gluten, Shan Lu wrote an article called “Structural Basis for Gluten Intolerance in Celiac Sprue” for a 2002 issue of Science that focused on describing Gluten Intolerance as opposed to a sensitivity. It explains that the Celiac Sprue, a widely prevalent autoimmune disease found in the small intestine, is the primary factor in an inflammatory response to gluten in a patient with a gluten sensitivity. This study was mostly informative and had little by way of a direct thesis to prove, or disprove. It may be useful as a reference that provides a more in depth explanation of the differences between an allergy and a sensitivity. And to put it in to laymen’s terms, an article written for WebMD by Katherine Kam provides an easily understandable explanation about gluten allergies. This particular article, “Going Gluten-Free,” was very brief with no specific message. The entire article focused on the description on gluten sensitivity and celiac disease, as well as the benefits of a gluten free diet. The benefits are mainly helping those with a sensitivity, there is no proof that it helps with other issues, such as weight loss. This article may come in handy for definition purposes, as the descriptions in many of the other article can be difficult to comprehend. In contrast, this article was written for the general public, not just specifically for the scientific community.

Several of the articles gathered discuss what either side of the debate is saying about GMOs.Much of the article “Celiac Disease Foundation, Plant Geneticist, Challenge Report Linking GMOs to Celiac Disease, Gluten Sensitivity” written in 2013 by Maggie Hennessy for the William Reed Business Media website focuses on disproving a report on the Institute for Responsible Technology website because of its speculative nature. The article provides quotes from several professionals to discredit the idea made by Smith and the Institute for Responsible Technology that the consumption of GMOs directly correlates to the development of gluten intolerance. Similarly, the article “Do Genetically Modified Foods Cause Gluten Allergies?” written in 2014 by Layla Katiraee for the website Genetic Literacy Project also aims to disprove a press release issued by the Institute for Responsible Technology, a one-person NGO founded by Jeffrey Smith. Katiree explains that Smith had no background in the science field and is statements were not given attention by the science community. She does go on to explain the difference between gluten sensitivities and allergies as well as where gluten data can be found, before delving into the essential question. In the article, some arguments both for and against the arguments of anti-GMO campaigners and the Celiac Disease Foundation (CDF) are explained, before stating that “the greatest evidence that GMOs are not tied to gluten allergies is that GMO wheat is not yet on the market.” One particular article “Are Genetically Modified Foods a Gut-Wrenching Combination?” written by Jeffery M. Smith for the Institute for Responsible Technology website is highly controversial. The article itself does make the distinction between wheat hybridization and GMOs, unlike some other articles with the same argument, but links components of GMOS to gluten-related disorders. It goes on to explain how each is a result of ingesting GMOs and how each leads to some form of gluten sensitivity or celiac. The article ends with a warning to stay away from eating GMOs and saying that many physicians prescribe non-GMO diets to patients with some form of gluten sensitivity. Another view is provided by the article “The GMO Labeling Battle Is Heating Up - Here’s Why” by Laura Parker for National Geographic which explains the concerns of manufacturers about giving consumers the wrong idea about a product by labeling GMO ingredients. It focuses the event of Cheerios are removing GMOs from their ingredients, and points out other companies, like Ben and Jerry’s and Chipotle Mexican Grill, or Trader Joes who have already or are working to eliminate GMOs from their products. The article makes the argument that Cheerios is just playing on the growing consumer mistrust of GMOs, and that the Food and Drug Administration have determined it safe for humans to consume GMOs, but still, 9 out of 10 Americans support labeling of modified foods. Similarly to the last article, this article from Environmental Nutrition titled “10 Whole Grain Myths Busted” by Densie Webb states common ideas about whole grains and follows each with a counter argument to disprove the basis of each argument. The article talks about whole grains as a whole, but it does specify some aspects as pertaining to wheat. The responses are straight forward and easily comprehended, but not lacking in directness of a point. There is no assumption that the evidence equals or outweighs any evidence against whole grains. A more easily understandable description of the debate is provided by a 2013 article titled “Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Foods” for the website HealthResearchFunding.org. The brief article lists the three major reasons both for and against GMOs, including increased allergic reactions. It follows the list with a debate over whether the benefits outweigh the risks, to which it states that the benefits depend on the specific issues of an individual area, such as hunger. The article also shows a series of images that describes aspects of GMOs, such as percent grown in the U.S., two reasons we may need them, and who requires labels or bans on GMOs.  

The best way to support either side of the debate is to follow it up with experimentation, many studies have been done on connections between GMOs and health.  A 2003 article for Environmental Health Perspectives titled “Introduction: What Are the Issues in Addressing the Allergenic Potential of Genetically Modified Foods?” and written by Dean D. Metcalfe sums up the basis of the debate surrounding GMOs and food allergies. It provides an explanation of food allergies on the whole, how a reaction to food is caused, as well as potential results of a reaction. It also describes forms of testing for food allergies and procedures to treat an allergic reaction, and the process of detection of allergenic properties of certain genes and the process of avoiding transferring these genes to GMOs.  In the end, the article determines that decisions made as to how to apply existing knowledge and databases in the assessment of GMO foods for potential allergenicity will be only successful if they are creditable to research scientists, industry and to the public at large. Hanaa Oraby wrote another article called “Biological Impact of Feeding Rats with a Genetically Modified-Based Diet“ in 2015 for the Turkish Journal of Biology which describes a study done on rats to determine the development of genetically modified organisms and their potential risk factor. It gives detailed explanation of the process of the study from feeding the rats to investigations of their organs and blood analysis. The last part of the article discusses the findings of the experiment which showed various forms of abnormal changes in cell shape, and protein formation, but no noticeably harmful impact on the health of the animals tested. A similar article written by C.R. Wilk-Nielsen and his associates in 2011 titled “Quantification of Dietary DNA in Tissues of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) Fed Genetically Modified Feed Ingredients” for Aquaculture Nutrition briefly describes a study the farming and feeding of Atlantic salmon. It then goes on to explain the basis of the study and feed ingredients, maize, both non-GM and GM, and non-GM and GM soybean, and the feeding and testing routine. The conclusion of the study showed that a large fraction of the dietary DNA was taken up and distributed to various organs in the salmon. It does state that it is yet to be determined if dietary DNA is also integrated into the genome of tissue cells, but that no differences were observed to specify a GM and non-GM origin of ingredients, and that no dietary DNA was linked to specific health effects. Another perspective is described in an article written by Christina Sarich for Natural Society. The 2014 article titled “18 Million Americans Suffer From GMO And Gluten Intolerance” is very clearly anti-GMO, connecting GMOs to the rise of gluten intolerance, and stating the formation of new, indigestible proteins in wheat. It makes no distinction between GMOS and organism breeding, such as wheat breading, and it makes broad statements about what genetically modified foods are doing to our bodies while little supporting evidence, and no basis for where some information like statistics and un-named studies come from. Over all, the article does not lend itself to reliability, but does provide an example of the counter argument. Further explanation on GMOs is provided by a 2013 article “Should You Worry About GMOs?” for Tufts University Health &Nutrition Letter.  The article starts with a description and history of the debate over labeling GMO ingredients in stores and restaurants and addresses the argument that there has been do discussion about whether or not such products have any health risks. It explains where you are most likely to find GM food, most being GM corn and soy beans are fed to livestock and that much of the engineered genes are eliminated in processing the foods, so few of those genes reach the grocery store. The article proceeds to explain that any gene added that actually effects the kernel or seed specifically is added for nutritional value. In weighing the arguments both for and against, the article suggests that the only real reasons for avoiding GMOs are ethics based, not based on human health. This gives a good view on both sides of an argument that few other articles have considered, that being the public/ethical debate, not just a health debate.

As with many scientific developments, the rise in gluten sensitivity could just be a greater number of people being aware of the allergy, but it may also be a result of human development and the evolution of human diets. In a July entry in 2008 titled “Grains and Human Evolution” for the blog Whole Health Source, Stephen Guyenet follows the evolution of human diet, stating that the evidence for how long humans have been consuming grains varies widely, but that it may never have been a major food source. He argues that thas not been sufficient adaptation to make grains a healthy food option, and we have not yet become tolerant to wheat which is the oldest grain. A similar article for National Geographic called “The Evolution of Diet,” provides the basis for the argument about the Paleo diet, which follows the diet of our hunter/gatherer ancestors. The article, which was written by Ann Gibbons, then goes on to explain that this craze is based on a few misconceptions and the story is a bit more complicated. Following the path of human diet through history, the article describes some important changes caused by each new development in the human diet, eating meat caused smaller guts, agriculture lead to a population boom. It goes on to explain what the “real” Paleo diet would have been comprised of and states there is no one ideal human diet and explains that the revolution of our diets may not have started with eating meat, but with the invention of cooking which breaks down food to make it more digestible but lead to the shift to processed foods like Twinkies. 

 

Works Cited

Bardella, Maria Teresa, et al. “Gluten intolerance: Gender- and Age-Related Differences in Symptoms.” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 40.1 (2005): 15-19. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.

Gibbons, Ann. “The Evolution of Diet.” National Geographic. National Geographic. Web. 25 May 2015.

Gil-Humanes, Javier, et al. “Reduced-Gliadin Wheat Bread: An Alternative to the Gluten-Free Diet for Consumers Suffering Gluten-Related Pathologies” PLOS One 9.3 (2014): 1-9. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

- - -. “The Shutdown of Celiac Disease-Related Gliadin Epitopes in Bread Wheat by RNAi Provides Flours with Increased Stability and Better Tolerance to Over-Mixing” PLOS One 9.3 (2014): 1-11. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

Guyenet, Stephan. “Grains and Human Evolution.” Whole Health Source.  N.p. 10 July 2008. Web. 21 Apr. 2015

Hennessy, Maggie. “Celiac Disease Foundation, Plant Geneticist, Challenge Report Linking GMOs to Celiac Disease, Gluten Sensitivity.” William Reed Business Media. William Reed Business Media, 3 Dec. 2013. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.

Kam, Katherine. “Going Gluten-Free.” WebMD. WebMD, 19 July 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Lásztity, Radomir, Tibor Abonyi. “Prediction of Wheat Quality—Past, Present, Future. A Review.” Food Reviews International 25.2 (2009): 126-141. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

Katiraee, Layla. “Do Genetically Modified Foods Cause Gluten Allergies?” Genetic Literacy Project. Genetic Literacy Project, 28 March 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Lu, Shan, et al. “Structural Basis for Gluten Intolerance in Celiac Sprue.” Science 297.5590 (2002): 2275-2279. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.

Metcalfe, Dean D. “Introduction: What Are the Issues in Addressing the Allergenic Potential of Genetically Modified Foods?” Environmental Health Perspectives 111.8 (2003): 1110-1113. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

Oraby, Hanaa, et al. “Biological Impact of Feeding Rats with a Genetically Modified-Based Diet.” Turkish Journal of Biology 39.2 (2015): 265-275. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

Parker, Laura. “The GMO Labeling Battle Is Heating Up - Here’s Why.” National Geographic. National Geographic, 12 Jan. 2014. Web. 25 May 2015.

“Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Foods.” HealthResearchFunding.org. HealthResearchFunding.org, 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Sarich, Christina. “18 Million Americans Suffer From GMO And Gluten Intolerance.” Natural Society. Natural Society, 8 July 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

“Should You Worry About GMOs?” Tufts University Health &Nutrition Letter 31.9 (2013): 4-5. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

Smith, Jeffery M. “Are Genetically Modified Foods a Gut-Wrenching Combination?” Institute for Responsible Technology. Institute for Responsible Technology. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

The National Wheat Improvement Committee. “Wheat Improvement: The Truth Unveiled.”(2013): 1-5. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Webb, Densie. “10 Whole Grain Myths Busted.” Environmental Nutrition 38.2 (2015): 6-6. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

Wilk-Nielsen, C.R., et al. “Quantification of Dietary DNA in Tissues of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) Fed Genetically Modified Feed Ingredients.” Aquaculture Nutrition 17.2 (2011): e668-e674. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

 

 

Chapter 13

Chapter thirteen of the Bedford Researcher is all about organizing your paper. It starts off by explaining different organization patterns such a chronology, description, definition, cause/effect, process explanation, pro/con, multiple perspectives, comparison/contrast, strengths/weaknesses, costs/benefits, and problem/solution. It goes on to explain each pattern and give examples of how they may best be used. The chapter then talks about arranging an argument using methods like labeling, grouping, clustering, or mapping out evidence. From there the chapter goes on to explain how to create an outline, both informal and formal, from the evidence and organization you have already gathered.

I think this chapter is going to prove very useful over the next few days as we continue to work on our outlines and rationale. I was a little concerned about how I was going to organize my arguments for this research project since the evidence does not necessarily follow a chronological timeline. Having this chapter will be very useful as it provides specific explanations of other types of organization and ways you can combine different organizational patterns. It will also be very helpful to have the descriptions of the different outline types so that I can check my work against each and make sure I stay on the right track.

Annotated Bibliography

Bardella, Maria Teresa, et al. “Gluten intolerance: Gender- and Age-Related Differences in Symptoms.” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 40.1 (2005): 15-19. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.

-This article describes a study that was done to determine if there is any correlation between gender and gluten intolerance. The study determined that the diagnosis of coeliac disease is more frequent in women, but this could be disproven in time with improved diagnostics of men. They also stated that the difference was only significant when diagnosed in adulthood when there is a greater association of iron-deficiency anaemia in women.  

Gibbons, Ann. “The Evolution of Diet.” National Geographic. National Geographic, 2014. Web. 25 May 2015.

-This article provides the basis for the argument about the Paleo diet, which follows the diet of our hunter/gatherer ancestors. It then goes on to explain that this craze is based on a few misconceptions and the story is a bit more complicated. Following the path of human diet through history, the article describes some important changes caused by each new development in the human diet, eating meat caused smaller guts, agriculture lead to a population boom. It goes on to explain what the “real” Paleo diet would have been comprised of and states there is no one ideal human diet and explains that the revolution of our diets may not have started with eating meat, but with the invention of cooking which breaks down food to make it more digestible but lead to the shift to processed foods like Twinkies.  

Gil-Humanes, Javier, et al. “Reduced-Gliadin Wheat Bread: An Alternative to the Gluten-Free Diet for Consumers Suffering Gluten-Related Pathologies” PLOS One 9.3 (2014): 1-9. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

-This article describes a study done to determine the quality of bread that has been made with reduced gliadin proteins in comparison to wheat and rice based breads. The results of this study indicated that there was no difference in terms of quality and that consumers may find it preferable to rice bread. It goes on to state that the value of this bread will depend on whether it can become commercially available.

---.“The Shutdown of Celiac Disease-Related Gliadin Epitopes in Bread Wheat by RNAi Provides Flours with Increased Stability and Better Tolerance to Over-Mixing” PLOS One 9.3 (2014): 1-11. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

-This article, much like the last, attempts to determine the value of breads with lower gluten protein content. It give more in depth explanations about gliadin proteins and celiac disease and the classification of gluten proteins (glutenins and gliadins) as well as some past studies done on reducing gluten properties in grain. The article goes on to describe the process of making bread and the properties of the bread/dough throughout the transformation. It then explains and compares the different properties described before in the study. Finally, the article explains its results, stating that the quality of the goods are similar to those of gluten containing baked goods.

 Guyenet, Stephan. “Grains and Human Evolution.” Whole Health Source.  N.p. 10 July 2008. Web. 21 Apr. 2015

-In his blog entry, Guyenet follows the evolution of human diet, stating that the evidence for how long humans have been consuming grains varies widely, but that it may never have been a major food source. He argues that thas not been sufficient adaptation to make grains a healthy food option, and we have not yet become tolerant to wheat which is the oldest grain.

Hennessy, Maggie. “Celiac Disease Foundation, Plant Geneticist, Challenge Report Linking GMOs to Celiac Disease, Gluten Sensitivity.” William Reed Business Media. William Reed Business Media, 3 Dec. 2013. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.

-Much of this article focuses on disproving a report on the Institute for Responsible Technology website because of its speculative nature. The article provides quotes from several professionals to discredit the idea made by Smith and the Institute for Responsible Technology that the consumption of GMOs directly correlates to the development of gluten intolerance.

Kam, Katherine. “Going Gluten-Free.” WebMD. WebMD, 19 July 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

-This particular article was very brief with no specific message. The entire article focused on the description on gluten sensitivity and celiac disease, as well as the benefits of a gluten free diet. The benefits are mainly helping those with a sensitivity, there is no proof that it helps with other issues, such as weight loss. This article may come in handy for definition purposes, as the descriptions in many of the other article can be difficult to comprehend. In contrast, this article was written for the general public, not just specifically for the scientific community.

Katiraee, Layla. “Do Genetically Modified Foods Cause Gluten Allergies?” Genetic Literacy Project. Genetic Literacy Project, 28 March 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

-This article, similarly to a one on a previous website, also aims to disprove a press release issued by the Institute for Responsible Technology, a one-person NGO founded by Jeffrey Smith. Katiree explains that Smith had no background in the science field and is statements were not given attention by the science community. She does go on to explain the difference between gluten sensitivities and allergies as well as where gluten data can be found, before delving into the essential question. In the article, some arguments both for and against the arguments of anti-GMO campaigners and the Celiac Disease Foundation (CDF) are explained, before stating that “the greatest evidence that GMOs are not tied to gluten allergies is that GMO wheat is not yet on the market.”

Lásztity, Radomir, Tibor Abonyi. “Prediction of Wheat Quality—Past, Present, Future. A Review.” Food Reviews International 25.2 (2009): 126-141. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

-In the introduction of this article, there is a brief history of the discovery and preparation of gluten. This is followed by an explanation of protein ratios and gluten properties. Then, a description is given of gliadin composition of wheat and it effect on grain quality. Each piece serves as a dissection of the gluten, gliadin, glutenin, and other gluten-related proteins. The article ends with a prediction of how quality will improve over the years to come.

Lu, Shan, et al. “Structural Basis for Gluten Intolerance in Celiac Sprue.” Science 297.5590 (2002): 2275-2279. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.

-This study focused on describing Gluten Intolerance as opposed to a sensitivity. It explains that the Celiac Sprue, a widely prevalent autoimmune disease found in the small intestine, is the primary factor in an inflammatory response to gluten in a patient with a gluten sensitivity. This study was mostly informative and had little by way of a direct thesis to prove, or disprove. It may be useful as a reference that provides a more in depth explanation of the differences between an allergy and a sensitivity.

Metcalfe, Dean D. “Introduction: What Are the Issues in Addressing the Allergenic Potential of Genetically Modified Foods?” Environmental Health Perspectives 111.8 (2003): 1110-1113. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

-This article sums up the basis of the debate surrounding GMOs and food allergies. It provides an explanation of food allergies on the whole, how a reaction to food is caused, as well as potential results of a reaction. It also describes forms of testing for food allergies and procedures to treat an allergic reaction, and the process of detection of allergenic properties of certain genes and the process of avoiding transferring these genes to GMOs.  In the end, the article determines that decisions made as to how to apply existing knowledge and databases in the assessment of GMO foods for potential allergenicity will be only successful if they are creditable to research scientists, industry and to the public at large.

Oraby, Hanaa, et al. “Biological Impact of Feeding Rats with a Genetically Modified-Based Diet.” Turkish Journal of Biology 39.2 (2015): 265-275. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

-This article describes a study done on rats to determine the development of genetically modified organisms and their potential risk factor. It gives detailed explanation of the process of the study from feeding the rats to investigations of their organs and blood analysis. The last part of the article discusses the findings of the experiment which showed various forms of abnormal changes in cell shape, and protein formation, but no noticeably harmful impact on the health of the animals tested.

Parker, Laura. “The GMO Labeling Battle Is Heating Up - Here’s Why.” National Geographic. National Geographic, 12 Jan. 2014. Web. 25 May 2015.

-This article explains the concerns of manufacturers about giving consumers the wrong idea about a product by labeling GMO ingredients. It focuses the event of Cheerios are removing GMOs from their ingredients, and points out other companies, like Ben and Jerry’s and Chipotle Mexican Grill, or Trader Joes who have already or are working to eliminate GMOs from their products. The article makes the argument that Cheerios is just playing on the growing consumer mistrust of GMOs, and that the Food and Drug Administration have determined it safe for humans to consume GMOs, but still, 9 out of 10 Americans support labeling of modified foods.      

“Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Foods.” HealthResearchFunding.org. HealthResearchFunding.org, 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

-This brief article lists the three major reasons both for and against GMOs, including increased allergic reactions. It follows the list with a debate over whether the benefits outweigh the risks, to which it states that the benefits depend on the specific issues of an individual area, such as hunger.The article also shows a series of images that describes aspects of GMOs, such as percent grown in the U.S., two reasons we may need them, and who requires labels or bans on GMOs.

Sarich, Christina. “18 Million Americans Suffer From GMO And Gluten Intolerance.” Natural Society. Natural Society, 8 July 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

-This article is very clearly anti-GMO, connecting GMOs to the rise of gluten intolerance, and stating the formation of new, indigestible proteins in wheat. It makes no distinction between GMOS and organism breeding, such as wheat breading, and it makes broad statements about what genetically modified foods are doing to our bodies while little supporting evidence, and no basis for where some information like statistics and un-named studies come from. Over all, the article does not lend itself to reliability, but does provide an example of the counter argument.

“Should You Worry About GMOs?” Tufts University Health &Nutrition Letter 31.9 (2013): 4-5. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

-The article starts with a description and history of the debate over labeling GMO ingredients in stores and restaurants and addresses the argument that there has been do discussion about whether or not such products have any health risks. It explains where you are most likely to find GM food, most being GM corn and soy beans are fed to livestock and that much of the engineered genes are eliminated in processing the foods, so few of those genes reach the grocery store. The article proceeds to explain that any gene added that actually effects the kernel or seed specifically is added for nutritional value. In weighing the arguments both for and against, the article suggests that the only real reasons for avoiding GMOs are ethics based, not based on human health. This gives a good view on both sides of an argument that few other articles have considered, that being the public/ethical debate, not just a health debate.

Smith, Jeffery M. “Are Genetically Modified Foods a Gut-Wrenching Combination?” Institute for Responsible Technology. Institute for Responsible Technology. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

-This particular article is highly controversial as it is the focus of other article I have mentioned earlier. The article itself does make the distinction between wheat hybridization and GMOs, unlike some other articles with the same argument, but links components of GMOS to gluten-related disorders. It goes on to explain how each is a result of ingesting GMOs and how each leads to some form of gluten sensitivity or celiac. The article ends with a warning to stay away from eating GMOs and saying that many physicians prescribe non-GMO diets to patients with some form of gluten sensitivity.

The National Wheat Improvement Committee. “Wheat Improvement: The Truth Unveiled.”(2013): 1-5. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

-This article provides an easily comprehendible explanation of the different types of wheat breading, both of which are considered to be crossing of species, not genetic engineering. It provides some background on the development and demand of wheat and mentions where and why scientists in the United States are working on understanding the wheat genome for future breeding purposes. Following these descriptions, the article lists several myths about wheat and provides specific facts in response to each misconception. Though some of the myths are easily disputed, wheat is either genetically modified or it isn’t, others are not as deeply discussed to provide sufficient counter arguments. Saying there is no evidence is not the same as saying there is evidence against, and it does not discount potential relationships. The article ends by stating all the positives about wheat and the breeding process. I do feel that some of their arguments seem a bit thin, but the facts they do provide speak to some of the questions I have had about the aspects of wheat breading that I hope to apply in my paper when differentiating between the process of breeding and genetically engineering.

Webb, Densie. “10 Whole Grain Myths Busted.” Environmental Nutrition 38.2 (2015): 6-6. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

-Similarly to the last article, this page of Environmental Nutrition states common ideas about whole grains and follows each with a counter argument to disprove the basis of each argument. The article talks about whole grains as a whole, but it does specify some aspects as pertaining to wheat. The responses are straight forward and easily comprehended, but not lacking in directness of a point. There is no assumption that the evidence equals or outweighs any evidence against whole grains.  

Wilk-Nielsen, C.R., et al. “Quantification of Dietary DNA in Tissues of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) Fed Genetically Modified Feed Ingredients.” Aquaculture Nutrition 17.2 (2011): e668-e674. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2015.

-This article briefly describes the demand for Atlantic salmon and the resulting farming and feeding of Atlantic salmon. It then goes on to explain the basis of the study and feed ingredients, maize, both non-GM and GM, and non-GM and GM soybean, and the feeding and testing routine. The conclusion of the study showed that a large fraction of the dietary DNA was taken up and distributed to various organs in the salmon. It does state that it is yet to be determined if dietary DNA is also integrated into the genome of tissue cells, but that no differences were observed to specify a GM and non-GM origin of ingredients, and that no dietary DNA was linked to specific health effects